Principal Investigator(s):Dunford, Franklyn W., University of Colorado at Boulder. Institute of Behavioral Science; Huizinga, David, University of Colorado at Boulder. Institute of Behavioral Science; Elliott, Delbert S., University of Colorado at Boulder. Institute of Behavioral Science

Summary:

The purpose of this data collection was to corroborate the
findings of SPECIFIC DETERRENT EFFECTS OF ARREST FOR DOMESTIC ASSAULT:
MINNEAPOLIS, 1981-1982 (ICPSR 8250) that arrest is an effective
deterrent against continued domestic assaults. The data addressed the
following questions: (1) To what extent does arrest decrease the
likelihood of continued violence, as assessed by the victim? (2) To
what extent does arrest decrease the likelihood of continued
complaints of crime, as assessed by... (more info)

The purpose of this data collection was to corroborate the
findings of SPECIFIC DETERRENT EFFECTS OF ARREST FOR DOMESTIC ASSAULT:
MINNEAPOLIS, 1981-1982 (ICPSR 8250) that arrest is an effective
deterrent against continued domestic assaults. The data addressed the
following questions: (1) To what extent does arrest decrease the
likelihood of continued violence, as assessed by the victim? (2) To
what extent does arrest decrease the likelihood of continued
complaints of crime, as assessed by police records? (3) What are the
differences in arrest recidivism between cases that involved arrest
versus cases that involved mediation, separation, warrant issued, or
no warrant issued? Domestic violence cases in three sectors of Omaha,
Nebraska, meeting established eligibility criteria, were assigned to
one of five experimental treatments: mediation, separation, arrest,
warrant issued, or no warrant issued. Data for victim reports were
collected from three interviews with the victims conducted one week,
six months, and 12 months after the domestic violence incident.
Arrest, charge, and complaint data were collected on the suspects at
six- and twelve-month intervals following the original domestic
violence incident. The investigators used arrest recidivism, continued
complaints of crime, and victim reports of repeated violence (fear of
injury, pushing/hitting, and physical injury) as outcome measures to
assess the extent to which treatments prevented subsequent conflicts.
Other variables include victim's level of fear, self-esteem, locus of
control, and welfare dependency, changes in the relationship between
suspect and victim, extent of the victim's injury, and extent of drug
use by the victim and the suspect. Demographic variables include
race, age, sex, income, occupational status, and marital status.

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
The purpose of the study was to corroborate the
findings of the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (1984) that
arrest is an effective deterrent against continued domestic assaults.
The study addressed the following questions: (1) To what extent does
arrest decrease the likelihood of continued violence, as assessed by
the victim? (2) To what extent does arrest decrease the likelihood of
continued complaints of crime, as assessed by police records? (3) What
are the differences in arrest recidivism between cases that involved
arrest versus cases that involved mediation, separation, warrant
issued, or no warrant issued?

Study Design:
Cases included in the study were required to meet
the following eligibility criteria: (1) Probable cause for an arrest
for misdemeanor assault was established. Cases lacking probable cause
and felony assault cases were excluded. (2) The case involved at least
two people, a victim and a suspect. (3) Both parties to the assault
were at least 18 years of age. (4) Both parties lived together
sometime during the year preceding the assault. (5) If the suspect was
present, a check of police records indicated no arrest warrant was on
file. If officers determined that the case met the eligibility
criteria, a treatment was randomly assigned by a computer routine
operated by the Information Unit of the Omaha Police Department. Cases
in which both the victim and the suspect were present when the police
arrived were assigned a treatment of either mediation, separation, or
arrest. Cases in which no suspects were present at the time police
arrived were assigned treatments of warrant issued or no warrant
issued. Interviews with victims were conducted one week, six months,
and 12 months after the domestic violence incident. Additional data
were collected from police officers who completed Domestic Violence
Report forms for each case. Police record searches were conducted on
suspects six and twelve months after the incident. Continued
complaints of crime, arrest recidivism, and victim reports of repeated
violence (fear of injury, pushing/hitting, and physical injury) were
used as outcome measures to assess the extent to which the various
treatments prevented subsequent violence.

Sample:
Two-stage random sampling design.

Data Source:

personal interviews and police records

Description of Variables:
Data were collected regarding the nature of the
domestic violence incident, subsequent incidents, the extent of the
victim's injury, extent of drug use by the victim and the suspect, and
the suspect-victim relationship. During the victim interviews
additional data were collected regarding the victim's level of fear,
self-esteem, locus of control, and welfare dependency, and changes in
the relationship between suspect and victim. Demographic information
includes age, sex, income, employment, and marital status. Arrest,
charge, and complaint data were collected on the suspects at six- and
twelve-month intervals following the original domestic violence
incident.

Response Rates:
A total of 577 domestic violence cases were
selected for inclusion in the study. The number of respondents who
completed interviews for Waves I, II, and III are 477 (81 percent),
438 (76 percent), and 416 (72 percent), respectively.

Presence of Common Scales:
A modified Conflict Tactic Scale was used in the study.
Hollingshead and Duncan Socioeconomic Indices are also included.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Performed consistency checks.

Standardized missing values.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:1991-03-05

Version History:

2006-07-24 All parts are being moved to restricted
access and will be available only using the restricted access
procedures.

2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 14
and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all
downloads.

2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 7
and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all
downloads.

2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to
one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as
well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS
portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised
2005-11-04 to reflect these additions.

1992-02-17 Machine-readable documentation and SAS
and SPSS data definition statements have been prepared for this
collection. In addition, the data are now available in logical record
length format.